Political Crossfire Forums

[ontheyslay]

Quote: Who said we were teaching it? You can't teach Creationism...that doesn't mean that it isn't a valid theory.

"Who said we were teaching it?" That is the issue here. Creationists want to teach it in a science class, that is the whole issue here. You can teach creationism, and it's all based on a religious view of God creating the world.

Quote: I never said who or what...just that Creationism is a theory. Again...please...try and understand.....I am not advocating the instruction of religion in science class.

What are you referring to here? Creationism is not a theory. If you advocate creationism being taught in school then you are advocating the teaching of a religious viewpoint in a science class. Obviously you do not understand.

[ontheyslay]

Ameriman wrote: ontheyslay wrote: Quote: Well at least you've conceeded the point. You're bias against creationism isn't a strong adovcate for your beliefs though...

It is not a question of bias against creationism, it is rejection of something that is not scientific being passed off as a scientific theory.

How do you know its not scientific? Yet one more time...just because we can't observe or test it doesn't make it an invalid theory. People subscribe to it...people should know that...

How do I know it's not scientific? Because it is not based on observation, it's based on scripture.

[ontheyslay]

Quote: OK. Where did everything come from according to Evolution?

All organisms on earth are related to each other through common descent, the products of evolutionary changes over billions of years. It is clear that all existing organisms share certain traits, including cellular structure and the same genetic code. Most scientists believe that all existing organisms share a common anscestor. Scientists do not yet know what exactly is the origin of life. That's why they continue to use evolution as a tool to find what exactly was the origin of life.

[Vulcidian]

perdidochas wrote: Vulcidian wrote: perdidochas wrote: Vulcidian wrote: ontheyslay wrote: Creationsim is not science. There is no scientific basis for it. Teach it in a religious studies class, not a science class. I don't think creationism is preying on the uneducated, it's a way for religious fundamentalists to push their views onto people who may not agree with it.

I think that it does. Most scientists have been content to simply do their research. The average working American doesn't have time to take an in depth course in biology just to understand evolution.

I think creationists and intelligent design advocates go into churchs and out into the public and prey on these uneducated people.

The bottom line is the scientists need to draw the line because creationists and intelligent design advocates have no serious theory, so they can spend all their time shouting about it in the streets and trying to work it into school boards.

Modern biology simply cannot function without evolution and neither intelligent design or creationism provide theories with any predictive power or scientific meaning. It's nothing but unprovable theological rubbish.

Well, I beg to differ with part of that statement. I'm an evolutionist (the evidence points clearly to evolution), but I do believe that biology would function without it. Also, what predictiveness does evolution provide? Evolution describes history. It doesn't provide for predictions, IMHO.

Vulcidian wrote: The average citizen doesn't have time to work out the necessary arguments to defeat these door to door scam artists who think they're doing their god's bidding.

Somebody has to protect the citizens of the world from this scam. Lest we fall back into the middle ages. Education is part of the plan, but so is rethinking our definition of tolerance.

I agree and disagree. I don't think that the government should be in the position to determine what non-governmental agencies teach. It is against the fundamentals of liberty. Also, some ideas that are now a central part of geology (plate tectonics) were once viewed as the work and idea of kooks.

1. Biology could not work without Evolution. How do we place the catagories of all the species of the world? How do we explain the role of DNA? How do we explain the behavior and the activities of organisms on this planet?

Much of the current classification system predates evolution.

DNA's role is passing genetic information on. Nothing in it contradicts creationism, and there is no logical reason that a creator would invent organisms that didnt' have a way to pass on information to offspring.

An intelligent designer would build in the same behaviors that we ascribe to evolution.

Vulcidian wrote: Without evolution this activity becomes meaningless. Why should an animal be compelled to survive if their is no motivation?

The motivation would be what the designer gave them.

Vulcidian wrote: 2. Evolution does provide for predictions. Evolution predicts that the bacteria which we kill today with our drugs will adapt to those drugs and so we must find new drugs. If you don't believe evolution, you don't believe this, and you think our drugs will work forever. This has already proven to be false. Variation is a cornerstone of evolution. Evolution predicts what will happen to any species in any given situation, it predicts that a polar bear will survive in the cold and a naked human will die. It's a simple prediction, obvious, but a prediction nontheless. It's also another cornerstone of evolution.

I don't buy your prediction argument, but luckily, I don't think of prediction as an integral necessity in a historical theory. Much of the actions of evolution are unpredictable. For example, nobody would predict that a panda would develop a thumb out of a wrist bone.

Vulcidian wrote:
3. The same people who didn't like plate tectonics also didn't like evolution. They have become less and less powerful because of free and REASONABLE discourse. Evoutionists should not turn on themselves and accept arguments without evidence.

Actually you are wrong about the "evolution" of the idea of plate tectonics. The reverse is true. The major part of the scientific community rejected plate tectonics as a crazy idea until the 1950s and 1960s. I have a geology textbook from the early 1970s that I bought at a used bookstore, and it mentions nothing about it. I have another geology texbook from the early 1980s, and in it, plate tectonics is a major theme. At one time, the scientific community looked at Wegener's idea of plate tectonics as some scientists today look at ID--as the work of a nutcase.

Vulcidian wrote: If you feel it isn't the governments job to make sure people tell the truth, what do you have to say about fraud, theft, and slander?

There is no law against lying, as long as it doesn't directly hurt anybody. I can't see how creationism/ID or even the Flat earth theory directly hurts anybody.

Vulcidian wrote: Parents aren't allowed to abuse their children, the government(the people) protect children from that. Lying to your child in order to cripple that child as a reasonable individual is abuse. The government protects children from abuse.

Well, teaching alternative (even wrong) ideas is far from abuse. That is a big stretch to say teaching creationism is child abuse. Things like that HURT the evolutionist side more than they help us.

Vulcidian wrote: If somebody could provide and support a creationist or intelligent design hypothesis, evolutionists, if they could repeat the experiment, would take it very seriously.

The same could be said about evolution. Any result of evolution can be explained by an intelligent designer. ID is not science, because it can't be disproven, not because it is necessarily incorrect (although I beleive it is incorrect, but that's because I think God as a designer would have done a much better job than the living things in the world today).

Vulcidian wrote: Evolution is taken seriously for a reason, and so is plate tectonics. Nobody is stopping creationists from testing their hypotheses. They simply don't have any, all they want to do is discredit evolution. In America, it's not ok to knowingly mislead people. It's call fraud.

Hmm, fiction (which often is knowingly misleading) is not against the law. While I agree that creationism shouldn't be taught in public schools, I don't agree with a contention that it should be illegal to teach in private schools or by parents or in written works.

1. Fiction is against the law when it is presented as truth. This is slander.

2. First, we now classify species by how closely they are related to the same evolutionary lines. Furthermore, what you have said is the problem with intelligent design. It is not a theory, you can mold any proposition of evolution into intelligent design because you don't need to be consistent. As I've said before, if the intelligent designer could become complex without evolution, then evolution itself is not necessary.

3. I don't know why you wouldn't by my argument. It's simply obvious that organisms adapt. They don't need an intelligent designer to tell them that they need to adapt. They just do, or they don't exist...

4. Plate tectonics has a huge body of evidence supporting it. No matter how much money or time you spend trying to prove intelligent design, it will all comeback to evolution. We'll just lose valueable time and money on an illusion of the mind. People believe plate tectonics because a theory with such consistent results cannot and will not be ignored by sciene. The connection between plate tectonics and intelligent design is fallacious. It would be like comparing plate tectonics to parapsychology....

5. Teaching children something to be truth when you know there is evidence to the contrary is abuse. Some people might say we need to teach intelligent design to counter evolution. But intelligent design doesn't have any reasonable testable hypotheses that would make it necessary to be taught. Would you teach Alchemy to counter the power of modern Chemistry?

6. I don't think parents should be allowed to teach their children to be racist or sexist. I don't think they should be allowed to teach them intelligent design as truth. Parents are supposed to care for children, not corrupt their minds when they are most vulnerable. You could try and use this argument against evolution, but once again, evolution has been proven as closely as any theory that science has to offer. The only thing intelligent design could hope to do is occupy the less clear areas of evolution with mysticism until we find out what is actually going on.

[Vulcidian]

First, I just want to be clear that it seems you don't require god to be intelligent to support your form of creationism.

I think we might just be disagreeing over our word structures. If you take any theory that attempts to explain the "origin" of the universe, then what I have just described to you is a creationist theory.

My definition of a creationist theory is one that says the universe cannot come about naturally and requires a complicated supernatural intelligence to create it.

If you agree that any theory that attempts to explain the origin of the universe is a form of creationism, then we have no dispute in that area.

Now, what started the ball rolling?

This notion goes back to Newtonian Physics and perhaps even back to Aristotle's "unmoved mover". I suggest that this is another one of those "human world" stipulations.

We assume that something has to start the ball rolling because this is usually what appears to be happening in the human world. It's the same idea that the sun appears to be rotating around the earth and the earth being stationary. It's only after careful observation that we can come to a better understanding of what it actually taking place. Namely, the earth rotates about it's axis and revolves around then sun.

So, what started the universe rolling is what you're asking. Surely it needed that first push from nowhere to actually begin? Since matter wants to stay put until acted upon by an outside force?

For this we must go back billions and billions of years to the primordial singularity that is supposed to have given birth to the universe. Where did that singularity come from? I have already said that the energy/matter was always here, if this can be true of god, it seems even more likely that this is the case for the energy/matter. It is only a question of how dense it is compacted before it becomes the singularity.

So how did it get to this state? And what caused it to change?

Here is where we go into the crazy and interesting world of QUANTUM MECHANICS.

We find that when objects are compacted into the quantum realm, they behave in ways which we would not dream in our human realm. This is because we have evolved to live in the human world where we percieve things in a certain way. We have found that as we go into larger spectrums and smaller spectrums of life, things behave in ways we would not expected.

For example, Einstein supplied relativity to explain what happens when we travel much faster than humans are accustomed to in our human world. It proves that sometimes when we think we are applying "common sense", we are simply mistaken because of our evolutionary history.

Here's a link to explore Quantum mechanics: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Now, when our universe is compacted to the size of the Quantum, what happens?

Then we go into the even more interesting realm of String Theory

We find that variation and motion are the only thing we can be nearly certain about. Objects don't "rest" the way they appear to in the human world. They are in a constant chaotic froth of quantum activity. Nothing had to start this quantum activity, we've found that quantum particles do things quite on their own and seemingly without any provocation.

Now that the distance between these particles has grown, the quantum foam is no longer so obvious. When the universe is reduced to the quantum level, this random quantum activity becomes very very important.

However, I must admit that I do not know everything about quantum theory. If I thought I did, I would be decieving myself.

The linguistic picture I have just painted for your makes hypotheses that have been tested and tested again, and is based upon mountains of evidence.

The intelligent creator does not have a fraction of this evidence. It has been shown how the universe behaves "on its own". However, as we are not adapted to the Quantum or the Galactic realm, it is difficult for us to speak about how they behave. We must be conscious that our discriptions are only metaphors that we gather from our experiences on the human world size level.

Postulating god is first attempting to say that our human notions are somehow perfectly applicable to the rest of the universe. When we find this is not so, god becomes mysterious.

Why do this to ourselves? Why not just find out how the universe works, instead of trying to make it fit within this system that it clearly rejects at every discovery. There's no "magic". Magic is simply a lack of understanding.

Magic implies the will of god. If there is no magic, then there need not be a god. There is only nature.

[bla bla]

The Bible is the written history of religious social engineering, the actions
it attributes to God are parable.
Many lessons in morality taught by the Bible are valuable, and worthy
of a place in our traditions, but dont look to it to explain how the universe
works.

[Ameriman]

ontheyslay wrote:

"Who said we were teaching it?" That is the issue here. Creationists want to teach it in a science class, that is the whole issue here. You can teach creationism, and it's all based on a religious view of God creating the world.

This is where you are wrong. Creationism isn't religion.

Quote:
What are you referring to here? Creationism is not a theory. If you advocate creationism being taught in school then you are advocating the teaching of a religious viewpoint in a science class. Obviously you do not understand.

No. Yet one more time. Creationism is not religion. Catholicism, Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Wicca, etc...all types of religion.

Creationism is simply the theory that the beginning was created...it has nothing to do with a specific religious doctrine.

[Ameriman]

Vulcidian wrote: First, I just want to be clear that it seems you don't require god to be intelligent to support your form of creationism.

My impression of Creationism isn't limited to an intelligent God. I've been trying to have you guys understand that I do not view Creationism as Religion and vice versa. To me, they are two different things entirely. Creationism doesn't try and explain the creator...it only lends itself to the idea that the universe was created...not that it had just appeared or always been...

Quote: I think we might just be disagreeing over our word structures. If you take any theory that attempts to explain the "origin" of the universe, then what I have just described to you is a creationist theory.

OK.

Quote: My definition of a creationist theory is one that says the universe cannot come about naturally and requires a complicated supernatural intelligence to create it.

I think that is one component to Creationism yes...but Creationism isn't limited to that one component.

Quote: If you agree that any theory that attempts to explain the origin of the universe is a form of creationism, then we have no dispute in that area.

Origin meaning beginning and as everything that has a beginning is created. Yes.

Quote: Now, what started the ball rolling?

This notion goes back to Newtonian Physics and perhaps even back to Aristotle's "unmoved mover". I suggest that this is another one of those "human world" stipulations.

We assume that something has to start the ball rolling because this is usually what appears to be happening in the human world.

Scientific Theory with evidence and testing to support it...no?

Quote: It's the same idea that the sun appears to be rotating around the earth and the earth being stationary. It's only after careful observation that we can come to a better understanding of what it actually taking place. Namely, the earth rotates about it's axis and revolves around then sun.

So, what started the universe rolling is what you're asking. Surely it needed that first push from nowhere to actually begin? Since matter wants to stay put until acted upon by an outside force?

Given what we can observe and test...when does matter appear out of nowhere?

Quote: For this we must go back billions and billions of years to the primordial singularity that is supposed to have given birth to the universe. Where did that singularity come from? I have already said that the energy/matter was always here, if this can be true of god, it seems even more likely that this is the case for the energy/matter. It is only a question of how dense it is compacted before it becomes the singularity.

So two quick things. A) You are basing your theory off of matter always being here with no observable or testable evidence behind it...how is that different than basing a theory off of a God? B) You are interjecting God which is a religious aspect...not necessarily a Creationist one.

Quote: So how did it get to this state? And what caused it to change?

Here is where we go into the crazy and interesting world of QUANTUM MECHANICS.

We find that when objects are compacted into the quantum realm, they behave in ways which we would not dream in our human realm. This is because we have evolved to live in the human world where we percieve things in a certain way. We have found that as we go into larger spectrums and smaller spectrums of life, things behave in ways we would not expected.

But the argument has been made to keep the theory of Creationism out of a science class because it cannot be tested and there is no evidence to support it. Doesn't this apply then to what you are discussing above? We can only test and evidence that which is in the human world and per the logic of some in this thread...that would mean that anything outside of that world does not belong in a science class.

Quote: For example, Einstein supplied relativity to explain what happens when we travel much faster than humans are accustomed to in our human world. It proves that sometimes when we think we are applying "common sense", we are simply mistaken because of our evolutionary history.

Here's a link to explore Quantum mechanics: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics

Now, when our universe is compacted to the size of the Quantum, what happens?

Then we go into the even more interesting realm of String Theory

We find that variation and motion are the only thing we can be nearly certain about. Objects don't "rest" the way they appear to in the human world. They are in a constant chaotic froth of quantum activity. Nothing had to start this quantum activity, we've found that quantum particles do things quite on their own and seemingly without any provocation.

Now that the distance between these particles has grown, the quantum foam is no longer so obvious. When the universe is reduced to the quantum level, this random quantum activity becomes very very important.

However, I must admit that I do not know everything about quantum theory. If I thought I did, I would be decieving myself.

The linguistic picture I have just painted for your makes hypotheses that have been tested and tested again, and is based upon mountains of evidence.

Disagree. For example...we haven't figured out how to test the String Theory.

Quote: The intelligent creator does not have a fraction of this evidence. It has been shown how the universe behaves "on its own". However, as we are not adapted to the Quantum or the Galactic realm, it is difficult for us to speak about how they behave. We must be conscious that our discriptions are only metaphors that we gather from our experiences on the human world size level.

Postulating god is first attempting to say that our human notions are somehow perfectly applicable to the rest of the universe. When we find this is not so, god becomes mysterious.

Why do this to ourselves? Why not just find out how the universe works, instead of trying to make it fit within this system that it clearly rejects at every discovery. There's no "magic". Magic is simply a lack of understanding.

How does God reject every discovery when it is extremely feasible to assume God created it that way. We have digressed into a religious discussion by one that is impossible to argue if you believe in God.

Quote: Magic implies the will of god. If there is no magic, then there need not be a god. There is only nature.

Since when does magic imply the will of God? I think that statement would be highly offensive to those of faith. Magic implies two things...one is the type of the spells and encantations and the other implies the type displayed by the like of Blane and Copperfield.

According to those of faith...God neither casts spells nor does he have smoke and mirrors. I think maybe the word you are looking for is miracle and nature is a miracle.

[ontheyslay]

Ameriman wrote: ontheyslay wrote:

"Who said we were teaching it?" That is the issue here. Creationists want to teach it in a science class, that is the whole issue here. You can teach creationism, and it's all based on a religious view of God creating the world.

This is where you are wrong. Creationism isn't religion.

Quote:
What are you referring to here? Creationism is not a theory. If you advocate creationism being taught in school then you are advocating the teaching of a religious viewpoint in a science class. Obviously you do not understand.

No. Yet one more time. Creationism is not religion. Catholicism, Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Wicca, etc...all types of religion.

Creationism is simply the theory that the beginning was created...it has nothing to do with a specific religious doctrine.

Creationism is a religious viewpoint. Just because you say creationism has nothing to do with religion over and over again doesn't make it true.

Where do you think creationism comes from? If you are going to say creationism isn't based on a religion, then prove it.

Many creationists have shyed away from saying creationism and turn to intelligent design because it doesn't have overt religious overtones.

Even Phillip Johnson, a well known ID advocate, has stated this. "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." http://www.christianity.ca/news/social-issues/2004/03.001.html

Intelligent design is explicitly religious as a motive for legislative change of educational standards. Legislation introduced in Michigan attempts to add "intelligent design of a Creator" to the science standards of middle and high school.

Several books on creationism are published by InterVarsity Press, which publishes Christian books and Bible studies. As an extension of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA, InterVarsity Press serves those in the university, the church and the world by publishing resources that equip and encourage people to follow Jesus as Savior and Lord in all of life.

[ikari]

Ameriman wrote: Given what we can observe and test...when does matter appear out of nowhere?

Random vacuum fluctuations

Ameriman wrote: Disagree. For example...we haven't figured out how to test the String Theory.

String Theory as it stands is nothing more than pretty math. However, the current upgrades being made to CERN will give the chance of conducting an experiment with string theory. Whether or not the experiment will be successful will be determined in the future after the research is done.

[Ameriman]

ikari wrote: Ameriman wrote: Given what we can observe and test...when does matter appear out of nowhere?

Random vacuum fluctuations

Ameriman wrote: Disagree. For example...we haven't figured out how to test the String Theory.

String Theory as it stands is nothing more than pretty math. However, the current upgrades being made to CERN will give the chance of conducting an experiment with string theory. Whether or not the experiment will be successful will be determined in the future after the research is done.

Point being that we had the theory and it was valid prior to testing.

[Ameriman]

ontheyslay wrote:

Creationism is a religious viewpoint. Just because you say creationism has nothing to do with religion over and over again doesn't make it true.

Fine...we will agree to disagree....

Quote: Where do you think creationism comes from? If you are going to say creationism isn't based on a religion, then prove it.

Which religion is Creationism based on?

Proven.

Quote: Many creationists have shyed away from saying creationism and turn to intelligent design because it doesn't have overt religious overtones.

I think you have it backwards. Intelligent Design implies God. Creationism doesn't imply anything other than the creation.

Quote: Even Phillip Johnson, a well known ID advocate, has stated this. "Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools." http://www.christianity.ca/news/social-issues/2004/03.001.html

Exactly. ID = God. Creationism doesn't necessarily. Thanks for proving your own point incorrect.

Quote: Intelligent design is explicitly religious as a motive for legislative change of educational standards. Legislation introduced in Michigan attempts to add "intelligent design of a Creator" to the science standards of middle and high school.

Agreed...which is why I've never stated ID...

Quote: Several books on creationism are published by InterVarsity Press, which publishes Christian books and Bible studies. As an extension of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA, InterVarsity Press serves those in the university, the church and the world by publishing resources that equip and encourage people to follow Jesus as Savior and Lord in all of life.

I'm not saying that religion isn't a component of Creationism...it is...but what will it take for you to understand that Creationism isn't limited to a religious concept. If your answer is that you will never understand that then our discussion is over.

[ontheyslay]

Quote: I think you have it backwards. Intelligent Design implies God. Creationism doesn't imply anything other than the creation.

Intelligent Design is a form of creationism. Other forms of creationism are Islamic creationism, young earth creationism, Neo-creationism, and others. All of which by the way are centered around a religious belief of a God creating the world. Can you comprehend this?

Quote: Exactly. ID = God. Creationism doesn't necessarily. Thanks for proving your own point incorrect.

Again you fail to realize the connection between creationism and intelligent design. Intelligent design is a form of creationism.

Quote: Agreed...which is why I've never stated ID...

Creationism is a broad concept that incorporates various religious based viewpoints for the creation of life, including... DING DING DING intelligent design. Why is it so difficult for you to realize that? Or perhaps you already do and do not want to admit it?

Quote: I'm not saying that religion isn't a component of Creationism...it is...but what will it take for you to understand that Creationism isn't limited to a religious concept. If your answer is that you will never understand that then our discussion is over.

Thank you for conceding the point that religion is a component of creationism. You say creationism isn't limited to a religious concept, yet you do not explain what the other components are in creationism.

Quote: Which religion is Creationism based on?

Proven.

Answering a question with another question is not an answer, and more importantly, especially with this question, it doesn't prove anything. But to answer your question, the various forms of creationism are based on christian fundamentalism, islam, hinduism, and many other theistic religions.

And for the last time, Creationism is the belief that humanity, life, the Earth, or the universe as a whole was specially created by a supreme being, or in other common definitions, it is referred to more precisely as the belief in a literal interpretation of specific religious works referring to God creating the universe, which is usually refered to as strict creationism.

By the way, you didn't answer my original question. Where does creationism come from?

[justintsn]

ikari wrote:

Ameriman wrote: Disagree. For example...we haven't figured out how to test the String Theory.

String Theory as it stands is nothing more than pretty math. However, the current upgrades being made to CERN will give the chance of conducting an experiment with string theory. Whether or not the experiment will be successful will be determined in the future after the research is done.

Well if it fails. Then they will just say that the element they are trying to produce is just to heavy to make.

[ontheyslay]

You know what I will do for you Ameriman, I will list the different types of creationism, and breifly explain them for you.

Here we go...

Creation Science: Creation science refers to the attempts by creationists (especially those who believe in a "young" Earth) to use the methods and empirical practices of science to support their side of the creation-evolution controversy. Creation science supporters work to demonstrate that the extant scientific evidence best supports a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation.

Intelligent Design: Intelligent design is the concept that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. All of its leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, which promotes the teaching of religion in school. They say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific, as pseudoscience or as junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

Islamic Creationism: Islamic creationism is the belief the universe including humanity were directly created by God as explained in the Qur'an or Genesis. While contemporary Islam tends to take religious texts literally, it usually views Genesis as a corrupted version of God's message. The creation accounts in the Qur'an are more vague and allow for a wider range of interpretations similar to those in other Abrahamic religions. Several liberal movements within Islam, generally accept the scientific positions on the age of the earth, age of the universe and evolution.

Modern Geocentrism: Modern geocentrism is a belief currently held by certain groups that the Earth is the center of the universe and does not move. The prime motivating factor for the modern belief, as opposed to the geocentrism of Ptolemy, is explicitly religious. Advocates generally argue that literal interpretations of certain Biblical passages demand that the Earth be properly described as being the center of the universe. Alternatively, in the case of Catholic geocentrists, scripture authoritatively interpreted by statements of Church Fathers and various Popes is used to justify their belief, even though this viewpoint is no longer endorsed by the Church itself.

Neo-Creationism: Neo-creationism is a movement whose goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators, and the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture. This comes in response to the 1987 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard that creationism is an inherently religious concept and that advocating it as correct or accurate in public school curricula violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

Old Earth Creationism: Old Earth Creationsm is a variant of the creationist view of the origin of the universe and life on Earth. It is currently the view of many Catholic and Protestant Christians, and is typically more compatible with mainstream scientific thought, on the issues of the age of the Universe or Earth, than Young Earth creationism. However, it still takes the accounts of creation in Genesis more literally than evolutionary creationists.

Progressive Creationism: Progressive creationism is a form of Old Earth creationism that accepts that new species have appeared successively over earth's long history but that, to a greater or lesser degree, each species represents a fiat miracle (thus the creationism part), and that the first pair or representatives of species were original and new creations formed outside the realm of naturalistic science (God).

Theistic Evolution: Theistic evolution, less commonly known as evolutionary creationism, is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to some religious interpretations. More specifically, it is the general opinion that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the human understanding about biological evolution.

Young Earth Creationism :Young Earth creationism is a religious doctrine which teaches that the Earth and life on Earth were created by a direct action of God relatively recently (about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago). It is generally held by those Christians and Jews who believe that the ancient Hebrew text of Genesis is a literal account of historical events, that evidence for a strictly factual interpretation of the text is present in the world today, and that scientific evidence does not support Darwinian evolution or geological uniformitarianism.


If this doesn't convince you, you are blinded by your faith.

[Ameriman]

ontheyslay wrote: You know what I will do for you Ameriman, I will list the different types of creationism, and breifly explain them for you.

Here we go...

Creation Science: Creation science refers to the attempts by creationists (especially those who believe in a "young" Earth) to use the methods and empirical practices of science to support their side of the creation-evolution controversy. Creation science supporters work to demonstrate that the extant scientific evidence best supports a literal interpretation of the biblical account of creation.

Intelligent Design: Intelligent design is the concept that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. All of its leading proponents are affiliated with the Discovery Institute, which promotes the teaching of religion in school. They say that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, current scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

An overwhelming majority of the scientific community views intelligent design as unscientific, as pseudoscience or as junk science. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.

Islamic Creationism: Islamic creationism is the belief the universe including humanity were directly created by God as explained in the Qur'an or Genesis. While contemporary Islam tends to take religious texts literally, it usually views Genesis as a corrupted version of God's message. The creation accounts in the Qur'an are more vague and allow for a wider range of interpretations similar to those in other Abrahamic religions. Several liberal movements within Islam, generally accept the scientific positions on the age of the earth, age of the universe and evolution.

Modern Geocentrism: Modern geocentrism is a belief currently held by certain groups that the Earth is the center of the universe and does not move. The prime motivating factor for the modern belief, as opposed to the geocentrism of Ptolemy, is explicitly religious. Advocates generally argue that literal interpretations of certain Biblical passages demand that the Earth be properly described as being the center of the universe. Alternatively, in the case of Catholic geocentrists, scripture authoritatively interpreted by statements of Church Fathers and various Popes is used to justify their belief, even though this viewpoint is no longer endorsed by the Church itself.

Neo-Creationism: Neo-creationism is a movement whose goal is to restate creationism in terms more likely to be well received by the public, policy makers, educators, and the scientific community. It aims to re-frame the debate over the origins of life in non-religious terms and without appeals to scripture. This comes in response to the 1987 ruling by the United States Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard that creationism is an inherently religious concept and that advocating it as correct or accurate in public school curricula violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment

Old Earth Creationism: Old Earth Creationsm is a variant of the creationist view of the origin of the universe and life on Earth. It is currently the view of many Catholic and Protestant Christians, and is typically more compatible with mainstream scientific thought, on the issues of the age of the Universe or Earth, than Young Earth creationism. However, it still takes the accounts of creation in Genesis more literally than evolutionary creationists.

Progressive Creationism: Progressive creationism is a form of Old Earth creationism that accepts that new species have appeared successively over earth's long history but that, to a greater or lesser degree, each species represents a fiat miracle (thus the creationism part), and that the first pair or representatives of species were original and new creations formed outside the realm of naturalistic science (God).

Theistic Evolution: Theistic evolution, less commonly known as evolutionary creationism, is not a theory in the scientific sense, but a particular view about how the science of evolution relates to some religious interpretations. More specifically, it is the general opinion that some or all classical religious teachings about God and creation are compatible with some or all of the human understanding about biological evolution.

Young Earth Creationism :Young Earth creationism is a religious doctrine which teaches that the Earth and life on Earth were created by a direct action of God relatively recently (about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago). It is generally held by those Christians and Jews who believe that the ancient Hebrew text of Genesis is a literal account of historical events, that evidence for a strictly factual interpretation of the text is present in the world today, and that scientific evidence does not support Darwinian evolution or geological uniformitarianism.


If this doesn't convince you, you are blinded by your faith.

Like I said...we can agree to disagree.

By the way...I'm not religious. :wink:

[ikari]

Ameriman wrote: Point being that we had the theory and it was valid prior to testing.

I never considered String Theory to be anything else other than pretty math. It wasn't until CERN began its upgrades and experiments were suggested that it became more a scientific theory. Once it picked up testable parameters it stopped being just math. While it is a valid theory of sorts, it's not accepted as anything more than pure theory. There is, as of yet, no proof to support the claims of String Theory. Time will tell if it holds water.

[ontheyslay]

Quote: By the way...I'm not religious. :wink:

Then I don't know what's wrong with you.

[Ameriman]

ontheyslay wrote: Quote: By the way...I'm not religious. :wink:

Then I don't know what's wrong with you.

Nothing wrong with me... I'm simply not encombered by any personal bias against the theory that the universe was created and didn't just magically appear.

[ontheyslay]

Ameriman wrote: ontheyslay wrote: Quote: By the way...I'm not religious. :wink:

Then I don't know what's wrong with you.

Nothing wrong with me... I'm simply not encombered by any personal bias against the theory that the universe was created and didn't just magically appear.

I don't believe in creationism because there is no evidence for it, not because I don't believe in God. My abscence of belief in a God is a completely different issue.

Obviously evidence and facts aren't important to you.